Why Islam does not accept Homosexuality

The specific reasons behind why Muslims don't actually accept homosexuality can be elaborated on following on from the prevous article Islam's opinion about Homosexuality.

We as Muslim are told to uphold three major aspects in our lives through our faith: Our personal spirituality, our domestic obligations within a family unit, and our society. Too often people associate religion as a practice behind closed doors, and forget that the society we live in plays a crucial role in our lifestyle. Therefore the structure of society is also important when talking about religious obligations.

Even when speaking from a non-religious perspective, one could present the same argument from the concept of natural selection which is the cause of life on earth as we know it whereby only the strongest and most suited in nature's eyes would survive the test of time. Having said that, the very same modern day enthusiasts forget that the equation of same-sex relationships puts a halt on the natural progression of mankind.

That in itself wouldn't be so much of a problem if one argues that it wouldn't be a "threat" to society, however in this day and age, we are seeing more and more statements made by self-appointed philosophers that claim that we all have homosexual tendencies that can be measured as a percentage of “how gay" we all are, claiming that ultimately we are all homosexual in one way or another and only the tendencies we choose to act upon are what differentiates us.

It is this distortion of reality that threatens the harmony of society. One who chooses his or her own sexual preference is one thing, but trying to convince society that we are all potentially gay is a corruption of this harmony.

Some gays and lesbians today also claim they had no choice in the matter, yet there is no evidence to base this argument on the physical attractions people have as infants or even as fetuses their mother's womb.

Reiterating the obligations we have towards maintaining a stable growth of humanity, many people naturally tend to think inwardly and selfishly of their own lusts and desires. The same can be said about a married man who cannot help but follow his urges to repetitively commit adultery, boldly claiming that "a man has his needs". Though that may have some truth in it, it is important to note that there is a significant distinction that separates us from the primates that base their lives purely on instinct rather than disciplined intellect. Humanity as a higher being survives based on its intellect. Our survival is bound by upholding the obligation towards fellow members of the human race which incorporates our responsibilities on a domestic and societal level.

Unless of course one thinks we should all live like animals?

We all agree to this concept; otherwise a man would not be condemned for having lusts and desires towards incest. If a grown man wants to have sexual relations with his grown daughter, although they are both in mutual consent and they both could claim that they “truly, madly, deeply love one another”, society sees this as a threat to our extended race even though it is only a corruption of the domestic structure of a family unit. The same can also be said about a mother and her son.

For the sake of argument, why then is homosexuality any different? Seeing that incest in nature's eyes actually has some form of acceptance (i.e. they could bare offspring), human society still sees the extent of the perverse nature of incest as a threat to our survival.

Lusts and desires are a dangerous concept if not disciplined responsibly. Some have gone to the extreme of mutilating their own body for the pursuit of this lust in order to change their very gender, and ultimately their own identity, only to look back and realise the grave mistake in amputating their own genital organ in pursuit of an insatiable appetite. Many have been surveyed about their deep regret in denying their birth right, and this can only lead to disaster.

What people must not forget is that the concept of homosexuality is not a "new age" phenomenon. It has been around for many centuries where there are references to the behaviour dating back to Biblical times.

So while many claim that religion fails to "adapt" to change, it has not gone without dealing with this scenario before and has been witness to entire cities that fell purely because of lusts and desires that lacked order and discipline.

More importantly, and a point that people tend to forget is that this should not encourage a violent disapproval of such behaviours (otherwise we would be in complete contradiction towards the validity of what we believe in as Muslims), but rather a tolerance of it in order for people to at least understand our perspective on it.

Although many may disagree with this opinion in Western society, that is also the beauty of humanity; the fact that there is such a diverse range of intellectual perspectives on these kinds of issues can only be healthy in challenging our core believes, or even cementing them…

A Muslim's perspective on Homosexuality

Today there are two words that are so very often confused: acceptance and tolerance.

Sometimes both are used synonymously with each other; however there is a much greater contrast between the two.

For example, if I were to say that we do not accept homosexuality, nor would we promote homosexuality, nor celebrate it, nor encourage it, that does not necessarily mean that we want to "rid the world of its abomination".

On the contrary, our religion teaches tolerance and respect for God's creatures. We also believe that we have no authority to judge someone based on their circumstances, because that is a matter purely for God to decide based on the complexity of each individual's life and their influences throughout their life.

With regards to acceptance, the similitude is like that of an atheist who does not accept Christianity, nor would they promote Christianity, nor spiritually celebrate it, nor encourage it. That would not necessarily mean that they would discriminate against a Christian. Although lately there is a wave of anti-religious rhetoric that seems to seep its way into today's society - becoming almost a fashion statement to patronise spirituality - it would be unfair for me to generalise.

The problem with today's society is that it has become taboo to disagree with one person's choice of lifestyle, almost as an attempt to silence the freedom of speech of one group over another. Rather than gays coming "out of the closet", the minority have been proverbially bullied into it. There is an undeniable attempt to assimilate today's minority in Western society rather than allowing them to integrate into society and still maintain their cultures and beliefs - these are also two words very often confused with regards to people's opportunity to give opinions.

I work in an office with many who are open and proud of their sexual preference. I work well with them in a healthy team environment and they are witness to the utmost respect I show for them. Simply because I do not agree with their choice of lifestyle does not change the professional friendship I have with them, especially since I would not get insulted when someone disagrees with the practices of Islam. It is simply a matter of opinion and choice.

Too often that choice gets forgotten in Western society, and when that suppression of opinion turns into a "frenzy", the whole meaning of acceptance and tolerance gets blurred.

Related article:
Why does Islam not accept homosexuality?

Is Abortion acceptable?

One way to look at the issues of abortion is from the following three categories: black, white, grey.

Most people would be more inclined to agree with what falls in the "white" which surrounds medical reasons, for example, a woman might die if she gives birth or a woman's life is in danger because some traditionalists are shamed by the fornication of a family member.

Other scenarios which quite easily fall in the "black" mainly revolve around the timing of the child. Most people obviously disagree with abortion in the extremely late stages of pregnancy without medical reasons.

There are many issues in the "grey" that people are mostly indifferent about or do not have enough expertise within the the field of "morality" to claim that it is right or wrong. Such examples include genetic defects in the infact from a mother's bodily abuse, supporting a child in poverty or pregnancy as a result of rape.

No one can attest to saying that "nothing" should be put it in the "black" category because that would be blindly supporting the notion of abortion without even considering that some cases may go beyond the moral high ground.
People should be just as open with regards to the possibility that if cases of abortion can be justified, there are others that cannot.

Having said that, the biggest topics that revolve around abortion are concerned with deciding on the placement of the "mistake" complex within the above categories.
This particular issue is more deeply seeded than any other issue because there is an element of proactivity that can be introduced.
With this issue, society shouldn't be trying to decide how to deal with abortion, but rather how to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

The same can be said about the rise of deaths resulting from drink driving, and the campaigns associated with drinking responsibly and dedicated drivers who need to stay sober.

With this "mistake" complex, campaigns surrounding contraception should be improved, as well as the general decency in society with regards to promiscuity instead of selling sex as bi-products in movies, billboards and ad campaigns. People need to start remembering that a family unit is what keeps a society thriving rather than the self-absorbed animal instincts that do nothing but destroy this unity. Mistakes can be minimised with positive approaches to encouraging alternate options to one's lifestyle.

Despite these remarks, mistakes are still ultimately mistakes, and one should never judge a person until all their own sins are removed.

No one is perfect; everyone can be forgiven.

Are Athiests more intelligent than people of faith?

There are plenty of philosophers, scientists, novelists, essayists, and engineers that fall within the vast spectrum of intellectuals who would also consider themselves strong believers of some form of theological ideology.

On the other hand there are many atheists that live their lives in the blue collar industry as plumbers, painters, taxi-drivers and brick layers, and some who didn't completed their secondary or tertiary education.

These examples on their own cannot "prove" any point as to who would be more intellectual than the other, and so we cannot possibly conclude that the level on which intelligence is measured upon is based on theology or atheism.

A "man of science" fits in both categories, since science has not yet contradicted religion; only theories have. Mainstream society too frequently forgets this. Since theories are still grouped in the category of speculation, one cannot assume that a man of faith falls outside the realms of "reality", and neither can he be labelled as ignorant.

Many of the philosophical ideologies presented by atheists and in particular regarding such concepts as the big-bang theory or Darwinism, is still in fact theory. The very thought process on what "might" or "might-not" have occurred in the history of the universe is in itself a belief; and therefore one may argue that atheism ultimately is a belief system in its own rite.

Just because these concepts are popular today, doesn't necessarily provide a means to measure intelligence.

The Atheist Faith

If we look at the deeper constructs of atheism, it is in actual fact a "rejection" of the concept of God; however that doesn't necessarily mean that atheists don't believe in an entity that binds the universe together.

In reality, atheism tries to justify concepts based on logical reasoning and deductions from specific findings that mankind has been able to muster over the ages.

Such concepts like the theory of evolution has only managed to allow mankind to establish reasoning based on 200 species of fossils over a period of 2 million years. That is, in perspective, similar to reading one page of a 10,000 page novel and then trying to explain what the book is about.

When scientists decided to change their focus from archaeological proofs to the more intricate molecular structures of mankind, more questions rather than answers had arisen.

Based on the lack of conclusive evidence, atheists were drawn to maintain the theoretical elements of their explanations, and some convinced themselves that "surely" the concept of natural selection is "more truer" than any other concept, thus as we witness today, most believe that natural selection is indeed fact.

But in reality, this falls into the categorisation of faith. Belief that natural selection and not a creator of all things is the source of our existence, is in itself a belief.

There are many atheists that understand that "random" selection based on trial and error cannot be possible as a lottery cannot construct such a sophisticated organism like the human being, and therefore the concept that "mother nature finds a way to adapt life" rings more clearly than most other theories.

It is fitting that we call it "mother nature" almost personifying the nurturing entity of nature, just like those who follow star-signs and believe that astrological alignments control our destiny, or New Yorkers who believe that finding a nickel is the city's way to communicate to them.

Ultimately, whether we call it Mother Nature, "the city that protects us while we sleep", the ultimate entity, the creator of all things, God, Allah, or whatever our hearts desire us to call it, the human being naturally seeks solitude with a greater force, even if we don't consciously admit it to ourselves.

Atheists today out-rightly reject the concept of an old man with a white beard sitting in a cloud shouting "good person", "bad person", and justifiably so; especially when most people don't adapt well to discipline from a man-like figure they don't relate to. But that does not necessarily mean that their faith of an entity greater than they can perceive wouldn't exist, rather only that they reject the dogmas of cultures that have taken over the spiritual authenticity of religion, and ultimately corrupted it with their own superstitions and traditions.

Lesley Hazleton - A Jew Reading the Koran